Have I got a great deal for your kids!

What if I told you that there was a treat that looked good and tasted yummy? However, this same treat could produce rage, temper tantrums, OCD, ODD, ADHD and uncontrollable crying in some children. But before you say you don't want any, let me tell you that I have another pill that will subdue your child and the symptoms of ADHD, OCD, etc will magically go away (at least temporarily)! Are you sold yet? Do you think I am nuts? Well, this is what we are doing to our children.

Have you ever heard of red dye #40 or simply known as red 40? It is coloring additive (or dye) was approved in 1971 based on tests conducted by Allied Chemicals. Ironically its creator and manufacturer is .... you guessed it, Allied Chemicals.

Red dye 40 is found almost everything that your kids eat. It appears that making things pretty colors makes kids want to eat them. I don't disagree with that. However in my research I found it in pop-tarts, fruit snacks, cereals, cough medicine, iced-tea, red candies, and so on.

Children are most often the ones who have sensitivity to red 40, whether or not their parents have realized it or not. Reactions include temper tantrums, hyperactivity, aggressive behavior, uncontrollable crying and screaming, kicking, nervousness, dizziness, inability to concentrate and sit still among other findings. Physically you may get frequent headaches or migraines, upset stomach and feel ill after ingesting this additive. Often when Red 40 is eliminated from the child's diet a remarkable change is noticed immediately. 1

Though evidence is anecdotal, there is such an abundance of it that it warrants a serious and impartial look by the FDA. The red dye was not in our food supply until the 1980 and isn't it ironic that diagnoses of ADHD gone up 600% since 1990? The quick fix for doctors and parents has been to feed our children Ritalin.

Let's step back... If you read my blog you will see that I am conservative as the next guy but I wonder about this whole concept of feed them one thing that makes they wild then feed them another thing that calms them down. How about just not feeding them that which makes them wild in the first place??? But if we did that then Honeywell (who owns the patent to red 40) and Novartis Pharmaceuticals (manufacturer of Ritalin) would have fewer customers. Think about it.

I am not saying that there is a conspiracy with these corporations. I am just observing an irony and stating that there is really no incentive for anyone to remove red 40 from foods

We as parents are obligated to learn more about what we are feeding our kids and where it comes from. Our son has a severe allergy to red 40 which makes him a raging madman. Eliminating it from his diet has made him the compassionate, loving boy he really is. Ironically he looked like the perfect candidate for Ritalin. Praise God that my wife dove deeper and learned more and then encouraged me to research this red dye stuff for myself.

---------------

1. Taken from: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/131963/is_the_red_40_food_dye_additive_having.html

My favorite blog entry on this topic: http://fourtimesthefun.blogspot.com/2007/02/feeding-our-children-petroleum-food-dye.html

-------------------

Note: The contents of this blog are for informational purposes only. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. It is not a substitute for a medical exam, nor does it replace the need for services provided by medical professional. Always seek the advice of your doctor before taking any prescription or over the counter drugs or following any treatment or regiment. Only your doctor can provide you with advice on what is safe and effective for you. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on the Web.

Multiculturalism only leads to balkanism

I just got an email from my Alma Mater telling me about a Multicultural Celebration coming up. I guess the annoyance that is Multiculturalism is something I would like to talk about. This movement has been around for a decade or more and it really troubles me. Not because I look down on other cultures but because it denies that there is a distinct American culture. Or it goes further and labels the American culture in a string of pejoratives.

There is a deeper problem when multiple cultures attempt to occupy the same geographical area. Eventually those who don't value their culture will concede to the other cultures that value their cultures more. If there is an equal partisan value for two competing cultures then either one extinguishes the other or a borderline is drawn.

In world history we see cultures of greater strenght moving in and eliminating cultures of lesser strength and we have seen boudaries drawn and re-drawn over and over. Only in today's America and maybe in ancient Rome has the dominant culture abdicated itself to the minority cultures, mostly out of fear of upsetting what they think is own eternal dominance.

Looking again at today's America if we continue to devalue the distinct Americal culture - which has made this country the greatest ever - and continue to allow all the cultures of the countries be celebrated above our own, then eventually the distinct American culture will be relegated to the history books and each of those multiple cultures will try to fill the void and want their own country within America.

If you think this is nuts then look at world history. Take Europe, for example. Especially see the territory that was once Yugoslavia. The different people who live there are not really that different, but they have battled for centuries and redrawn borders as a result of clashing cultures... essentially ending up with perpetual balkanism. On a lesser scale why do you think Quebec does not get along with the rest of Canada? Language and Culture. The list goes on.

It is only because America is a free country and because of the values that flow from freedom that is there a tolerance for other cultures coming in and saying theirs is superior. Why aren't different cultures going into China or Iran and demanding multiculturalism?

I just don't see Multiculturalism as benefitting anyone. Yes it makes those who hate America feel good today but debasing America's and her culture will not benefit anyone living in America in the long run.

Porn: Only the worst is willing to be seen

I think it is a tragedy that the only ones willing to show how sex is done are the ones who are willing and able to show us how it should not be done.

Like many men the only way I was taught about relating to a woman sexually was though pornography. Unfortunately my dad's dad never talk to him about it and my dad never talked to me about it. I basically had no clue until I saw my first porno at age 17. What are some of the lessons I learned? 1. The woman is ALWAYS ready. 2. The woman has a greater sex drive than the man. 3. The woman does not need warming up. 4. The woman is there at the pleasure of the man. 5. The woman services the man then they have intercourse then he ejaculates on her and both are fulfilled and happy. 6. Oh ya, women always have perfect bodies. Do we see a tragedy yet?

Today's online pornography is even worse. Today's youth are being taught 1. All of the above. 2. Women like to be abused. 3. Women like to be called names and have unlimited amounts of bodily fluids all over them. 4. Women like it when several men abuse them at once. 5. Woman are no more than pieces of meat that want to do anything and everything the group of men decide. Do we see an even greater tragedy evolving? Why are these the only things that we see?

Let's back up a little. What if a young man's parents have a happy, healthy marital sex life? Dad can tell his son how to treat a woman and show him how he treats mom outside the bedroom but obviously he cannot show his son visually inside the bedroom. This is where good adults are hamstrung. The youth do not see what it good and healthy primarily due to morally obvious reasons.

In a perfectly upstanding world we would have videos were women are loved and cherished before, during and after sex; where it shows how long it needs to take a women to warm up; where it shows a couple that actually loves one another and is married. BUT this is the ultimate catch 22. The couples that love each other enough to have a healthy sex life are the least likely to perform in front of a camera.

It is the perverted sex and the distorted sex and the couples that don't love one another that perform for the whole world to see. What if the only sex that was available to see was the kind where the woman is treated like gold and there is love and mutual giving between the couple? I understand I am being pollyanic. The truth is that porn markets to our lowest instincts. It is made to please men and show a fantasy where a man doesn't have to do anything to a woman in order have her jump all over him. That is what sells.

So to summarize; That which is bad for us and instills innacuracies and perversions in our young men is found EVERYWHERE. But that which is healthy, loving and accurate is too embarrasing to show our young men and it is found NOWHERE.

I am not advocating that loving, honest, clean married couples drop their personal convitions and their inhibitions in order to provide instruction to our youth about sex. I am merely pointing out the irony of who is afraid to teach about sex and who is not afraid.

We all pay the price.

Banning of Easter being taken a step further

News wire - 03/23/07

As was reported two years ago, some malls in Florida and elsewhere in the country are forbidding the term "Easter Bunny" and replacing it with "Garden Bunny". UPDATE: The malls have proactively decided to scrap the term "Garden Bunny" because of "Garden of Gethsemane" is mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible.

Dave Woosie, a vice president of a chain of Florida malls, said that because the "Garden of Gethsemane" is the scene of one of the most dramatic events of Bible History on The Fateful Night before the Crucifixion the term garden may offend non-Christians and non-Bible believers.

Other names like "Walking Bunny", "Miracle Bunny" and "Love Bunny" were all vetoed as well because Jesus walked on water, performed miracles and commanded people to love thy neighbor.

At this time the faux furred biped is just being called the "Mall Bunny" since there were no known malls, as we know them today, in Jesus' day.

Just a bat

When (insert favorite baseball slugger here) steps to the plate and knocks the game winner out of the park, how often do we say "what a great bat?" or "I give the bat all the credit". The bat does not then go around asking for more money and signing autographs and looking for more acolades. Let's look beyond the fact that the bat is an inanimate object but that it is just a tool used by the batter to do powerful and awesome things.

When I am living in God's will and things are going well, I lose sight of the fact that I am just a bat and God is the slugger. Without God I am just a bat and with God I am still a bat. I am only an instrument to do His good and when I take the credit I am just being foolish. Yes the bat needs to come to the came in the right shape and condition. That is my responsibility. But the great accomplishments of the bat are to be given to the Slugger.

Keep your successes in perspective and don't give an in-road to satan.

CSI, reality & PC filters

Some time ago I again watched one of my favorite shows - the original CSI. The main crime to be solved on this episode was a group of youths were beating unsuspecting victims. I remembered that there was recently a crime in Las Vegas caught on video where a white, middle aged man was set upon by a group of male and female black youths for no reason. I had read in the news that the same group had done it to other people too. Being a white person this really scared me that any white person could be beaten for no reason by a group of black youths in the city.

Well lo and behold, CSI had to take reality and PC it. In the CSI episode just about every youth in the gang was white and the leader was white. The only black youth in the group was a college student (as opposed to the white kids who were all uneducated). This black youth was killed by Greg (a CSI agent) in self-defense but at the end of the show Greg was overcome with white-guilt for killing this poor innocent child. OK CSI didn't want to be complete copycats to an actual crime but this was blatent.

It reminded me of another episode from 2 or 3 years ago. There was a real life crime where a black woman hit a man with her car. The man was stuck in her windsheild and bled to death in her garage. Well, CSI took it on this real life crime where a suspect hit a man who got stuck in the windsheild. The suspect then kept the car in their garage and the victim bled to death. Ok, guess the race and gender of the person who hit pedestrian..... yep a white male. He was a young lawyer that didn't want to hurt his career. I guess it makes for better TV since people tend to hate sniveling young lawyers more than a lower class black woman.

I am not a racist. I believe in the truth, not a filtered truth that makes everyone feel better. CSI does everyone a disservice by making believe that "PC thinking" is reality when they are afraid to portray reality as reality.

What if an "old time" crime show came out and it showed groups of middle class blacks in Indiana in the 1920's lynching white people and hanging them from trees? Well, that is absolutely preposterous. That is the opposite of what actually happened. The races would be 100% reversed from reality. We have see the pictures.

So why is it not considered preposterous that CSI reverses the races from reality? We have seen the videos and the news...

Marriage is hard work

Marriage is hard work. It requires two people to come together and be one. Ya that sounds simple but for most it is not. We are all raised with a set of values. If any of those values are tainted with selfishness then we have some work on our hands. Selfishness is the #1 killer of marriages in my book. When we get into a commited relationship then a marriage we must die to ourselves.

This means different things to different genders. I am going to speak in generalities but try to apply them to your specific relationship. For men we are not typically inclined to be romantic except when we are settled in the marriage. We are not in the mood to meet our wives emotional needs, especially after she has not been nice to us. This is what I will call "God time". God loves us anyway. He loves us despite our faults. We are called to romance our wives and meet their emotional needs whether they are being good to us or treating us crappy. Yes it is really difficult when we have been neglected or treated crappy but Jesus calls us to go beyond our earthly nature. Our earthly nature is to withdraw and/or punish. Jesus calls us to continue to serve our wives.

For women, after years of marriage, sex is not something many particularly need as much any longer. This is probably not the case for their husbands. Life happens and kids come along and people get very very tired. This requires "God time" from the wife. They need to go beyond their earthly nature and seek to meet their husbands physical needs. Maybe their emotional needs are not being met but Jesus calls us (both wives and husbands) to serve and not to be served.

When either spouse neglects their duty to the relationship then the decay will begin and the foxes will enter the garden.

When both spouses/partners rise above their own earthly selfishness and commit to putting the other first - for the sake of the relationship - then the relationship will be as close to a heaven on earth as you will ever see.

{{originally blogged in July 2005}}

Freshman NH congresswoman shows ignorance

Let's face it. Carol Shea-Porter is a jewel of colossal ignorance. She is ignorant of history, ignorant of human nature and farsightedly ignorant of our enemies. It is quite a tragedy how our dimmest bulbs end up in congress while our best and brightest avoid it all together.

The voters of NH made a huge mistake in November when they elected Ms. Shea-Porter. Perhaps too many NH voters are envious of the genius that is the Mass delegation and wanted to imitate their voting preferences. However the result of this is that we have elected someone who knows nothing of history. She is a Johnny-one-note. All she talks about is getting the troops out of Iraq In doing so she displays how little she knows about what we face. right away.

In an op-ed in the Union Leader, Ms. Shea-Porter first stated that "America has now been in Iraq longer than it was in World War II". What an insanely ignorant view of history. World War II was actually fought and not micro-managed. WW II ended because our enemy was destroyed and they surrendered. It was because of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and in a sense Dresden being leveled that forced our enemy to quit. It just happened to be four years after Pearl Harbor. In the meantime there were no guarantees that the US would prevail in either theater.

Today, America is so much stronger than anyone on the planet that we could level Iraq anytime we want to. But America is not going to do that. It would not be in our best interest to flatten Baghdad. We are also not fighting a clear enemy yet we are so strong that we can take some casualties while we rebuild a nation. This is unprecedented in human history. To compare the geo-politics of the 1940's to today, as if we had a choice as to when WW II would end, is clearly and blatantly showing Ms. Shea-Porter's ignorance of history.

As a matter of fact, WW II really hasn't ended. We still have a military presence in Germany and Japan to this very day. How come we didn't pull out of those countries in 1945, Ms. Shea-Porter???

Ms. Shea-Porter claims that President's pretext for going into Iraq (WMDs) was false. We know Iraq had WMDs because they used them in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds. Also the regime had more than ample warning time to move the WMDs to Syria or another ally. These people are not stupid. If the police were coming to raid your stash of illegal items and told you when were coming, wouldn't you just move them out of where they were going to search? This is common sense. They knew we were coming and moved them out.

Ms. Shea-Porter continues her op-ed by showing her ignorance of human nature. Let's look at an Iraq pull out with common sense; The American troops are pulled out, even if the people of Iraq can't defend themselves. You will now have an oil rich nation with limited means of self-defense sitting next to a bitter enemy. It has already been revealed that the Iraq insurgency is actually mostly terrorists from Iran, Jordan and Syria crossing the border and committing the acts. The reason they are doing this is to break the will of the American people. They know that eventually our spineless politicians will come to value their jobs more than winning the war - can someone say Vietnam?

Nature abhors a vacuum and if we leave before the job is done, Iran or another one of our enemies will soon be running Iraq. Guess what the price of oil with be then, Ms. Shea-Porter?

We are fighting an enemy that has no respect for life, no standing army and no country. We invaded a country with an extremely dangerous dictator and have begun to establish a democracy in just a few years. With that, we have suffered only 3200 casualties in four years (I am not minimizing the loss of life, just putting it in historical perspective). This is amazing! Recall that we lost 19,000 troops in the Battle of the Bulge alone with almost 90,000 total casualties in that month long battle. Ms. Shea-Porter and the rest of her ilk need to read their history before making such nonchalant comparisons to WW II.

They also need to realize that any timetable put on Iraq will cause the insurgents to just wait for that timetable to pass. If we leave Iraq before it is stable then out enemies will just pour in and take over. This will be far more devastating to America's reputation, the world economy and freedom everywhere.

Voters of the first congressional district please make another change in 2008 and once again fill that seat with an intelligent, historically wise leader with common sense.

Purple state republican putting out political rhetoric, not conservative beliefs.

Much to my chagrin, New Hampshire is going through an undesireable change. When I moved here in 1995, the granite state was quickly becoming the lone red state in a sea of deep blue. We had all republican Reps and US Senators. They weren't Lincoln Chafee republicans either. They were solid conservatives. Well in 2002 my Rep, John Sununu, a very strong and true conservative, moved to the senate. During the primaries for his seat all of the conservative republicans shared the majority of the votes thus making a moderate republican, Jeb Bradley, the republican nominee.

For a moderate, Jeb's voting record was very conservative and I was very pleased. However in the massacre of 2006, Jeb was a victim as he lost to a moobat who ran on an anti-war agenda. New Hampshire is quickly becoming blue but currently in a state of purple.

In recent months several other moonbats have brought forward a series of cantidates to take on John Sununu in 2008. In response to this my senator - instead of solidifying his conservative base - has instead begun to state left of center moonbat-like idiocies. The two most prominent are "Sununu calls for Gonzales' firing" and "Sununu: U.S. could leave Iraq next year". Where in the world did this come from? Is my senator Jim Jeffords or John Sununu?? Needless to say this rhetoric is making a conservative like myself very nervous. Why is he trying to pander to the liberals in NH? What does he think that is going to get him? They are not going to vote for him no matter what anti-Bush pap he puts out.

Mr. Sununu needs to dig in his heels and state what he truly believes and continue to be the same man that we elected. Unfortunately he is just being a politician and he is trying to say what he thinks will get him elected. However in 2006 that didn't work for any republican who tried to sound more like a democrat and I fear that the same backlash will happen to my senator in 2008 unless he returns to his true conservative views that got him elected repeatedly here in the great state of New Hamphire.

Comments on the prayer of Agur, being rich and being poor

Proverbs 30: 8-9

8 ... give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread.
9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the LORD ?'
Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.

---

Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the LORD ?'

Every time powerball reaches $100 million plus I start having dreams of winning the big one. I have it all planned out. I would immediately call my lawyer and have him put together a contract in which all my family, close friends and favorite charities would get a nice chunk of change. You see, I would do it right. Despite this honorable intention I cannot deny that things would change. They would change inside me, change my relationships with family and friends and change my relationship with the Lord.
Many of us kid ourselves that if we were suddenly rich we would be the same person and our relationship with the Lord would not change. I contend that this is biologically impossible. Let's say a man has walked several miles to the store every day. He has to take good care of his feet and he has to stay in good physical shape. One day he finds a car in the yard that can take him to the store with less effort. His concern for the health of his feet are no longer the highest priority. Even if he continues to walk to the store to prove that the car has no affect on him, he knows it is there and at his disposal. The temptation is there and taking valuable brain cycles that were previously only dedicated to his feet. Eventually this man accepts that the car is his and drives everyday to the detriment of his exceptional health.
His willingness to give up the car on his own will be a battle that he may not meet successfully overcome. Typically it will take the loss of the car that will force the man to put the faith back into his feet.

CS Lewis said in Mere Christianity:

"One of the dangers of having a lot of money is that you may be quite satisfied with the kinds of happiness money can give and so fail to realise your need for God. If everything seems to come simply by signing cheques, you may forget that you are at every moment totally dependent on God. Now quite plainly, natural gifts carry with them a similar danger. If you have sound nerves and intelligence and health and popularity and a good upbringing, you are likely to be quite satisfied with your character as it is. 'Why drag God into it?' you may ask."

Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.

God has blessed my life in that I have never been poor. I have always been middle class and have never gone without. I have no concept of having nothing. Praise Him!!!! With that, I don't know if I would become a thief if I were poor. What I do know is that I have been a thief ironically when I had plenty. Having a good job and being comfortable was just not enough. I needed more and I justified my actions. "They don't pay me enough!", "They will never miss these pens or this paper!", etc, etc. Even with God's great gifts given to me I would continually dishonor Him.
If I ever become poor, perhaps I would buck the conventional wisdom and not resort to stealing. Perhaps the forced humility would bring me to my knees and more inclined to turn to Him. I honestly pray to never know that answer.

The self-annihilation of the west

Have you ever seen a movie where the main character is killing himself but does not and can not see it? It is very frustrating and you almost feel helpless as you yell at the screen.

I read an article today on how abortion is losing its stigma in the UK and that more and more women over 40 are choosing not to have children. Simple arithmetic will tell you that not only will the population not increase or even stay steady but eventually all the childless Brits will eventually die - without Brits behind them to sustain the British culture. Up until not too many generations ago, couples in the west held to Christian morals and values and they heeded the command to become fruitful and multiply. This focus assured the British culture that there would be more Brits to follow and to sustain the culture.

However today, all over Europe, the western nations are not having children. They are choosing to abort their babies in an attempt to maintain a higher level of self-indulgence. At the same time, immigrants from predominantly Muslim nations are making a home in these European countries. Devout to their religious convictions - as the west used to be - the immigrants are not killing their children and not choosing to be childless. They see the need to bring children into the world and to learn their values. I commend them for this.

However, I don't need to show a chart to explain the long term outcome of these "choices". The culture that is killing their young will someday be outnumbered by the culture that is being fruitful and multiplying. At some point each European nation will have to go to war to reclaim their culture and their land OR they must learn to live as a minority under a new form of Islamic rule in a land that was once theirs.

Just like the aforementioned movie, it is very frustrating to watch this unfold in Europe. What is more frustrating is the level of exuberance that the West is seeking to totally relinquish its own culture and its own land in the name of personal "choice" and the doctrine of hedonism. The irony is once strict Islamic law is the rule of the land, there will be no more abortions allowed. By that time it will be too late as any attempt to be fruitful and multiply will largely be moot because they will be the minority to a majority that has less of a tendency to self-annihilate.

Is yes, no and no, yes or yes, yes and no, no?

This morning my 4 year old boy wanted to play a game with me. He said "daddy yes is no and no is yes". I said OK I'm game. I asked him "OK. Is that the way it's going to be?" He replied with "yes". I said "good, I was worried that things would get confusing". Now he was confused. Are you?

I immediately found a correlation in his game with post modernist thinking. The post modern types thinking evolves into believing that which is good is actually bad and that which is bad is actually good. We are told that we are not allowed to make a judgements on that which is wrong because there are no such thing as absolutes. However the mere fact that they made that statement, they are breaking their own rule. Just like my son broke his rule when I asked him if he his rule was the way it was going to be. When he said yes, according to his law, he meant no. This brought me relief knowing his law didn't apply.

The post modernist's "there is no absolute truth" rule does not apply to the real world either. It is only God's absolute truth that we can rely on because yes is yes and no is no.

On the Separation of Church and State

Why would the founders of this nation put in the Constitution a separation of church and state?

Why not synagogue and state? Why not mosque and state?

Because they didn't put separation of church and state in the Constitution! There is no mention of the words "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" comes from a letter by then-President Thomas Jefferson to a Connecticut Baptist Church. There was a fear of the establishment of a national church much like the Church of England. To see the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson and his response go here.

Speaking of Jefferson, while President of the United States, he was elected the first president of the Washington, D.C. public schools board where he made the Bible required reading in the classroom. With this fact in mind, why would a man who required the Bible in public schools also think that religion didn't belong in any public arena? What did Jefferson mean by "wall of separation between church and state"? Did he mean to protect the Government (public) from religion? No. He wrote this to keep the state from telling the church what it can and cannot do. That includes what it can and cannot do on public property.

Ok. With that said, what does the constitution actually say about this and what restrictions does the constitution put on religion? Here is what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that only Congress is restricted. Congress cannot do two things. They cannot establish a national religion and they cannot prohibit us from expressing our religious beliefs ... anywhere!

So who is stopping Christians from putting a Crèche on the town hall lawn and who is taking down the 10 Commandments from court buildings? Primarily it is the atheist lawyers in the ACLU and the atheist judges that agree with them. These people are bent on removing all Judeo-Christian influence from all public life. Alan Keyes stated, "What we are seeing is an effort to impose a uniformed national regime of atheism."

What bothers me more and more is the prohibition of anything Christian from our public schools. Recently The Thomas More Law Center sued New York City for prohibiting the display of Nativity scenes in public schools, despite the fact that they allow the Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent to be displayed. Getting down to brass tacks, there is no provision in the constitution for providing a public school system. Public schools are funded primarily from the local public. Our public schools are not federal government (state) schools. So why can't religious values be displayed/taught in public schools? There is no reason.

It all comes down to the fact that there is no law against religious citizens professing their reverence to God in public places. The ACLU, atheist judges and anti-Christians all across this country have obfuscated this entire debate and have sold many of us in the Church a bill of goods and frankly they are winning. Knowing the truth, we must reverse these trends or we will continue to lose the soul of our nation.

I would like to suggest two sources that cover this battle quite thoroughly:

• Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity by David Limbaugh
• Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State by Daniel L. Dreisbach

[Orginally written Monday, October 27, 2003]